Upper Petaluma River Watershed Flood Control Project Scoping Study Meeting Summary

Transcription

1 Subject: Stakehlder Meeting #3 Prepared Fr: Snma Cunty Water Agency Attendees: See Sign in Sheet Prepared By: RMC Date/Time: December 8, 2011; 6:30 pm Lcatin: Lucchesi Cmmunity Center, Petaluma Meeting Objectives: Review prject cncepts with stakehlders Discuss and btain feedback priritizatin prcess and study area pririties Attachments Attachment A: Meeting Agenda Attachment B: Presentatin Slides Attachment C: Meeting Attendees (frm sign in sheet) Discussin Items This summary is f agenda items 8 and 9 as shwn in Attachment A. A cpy f the slides presented and made available t attendees is included as Attachment B. The names f meeting attendees that signedin are included in Attachment C. Zne 2A Cmmittee Chair Ted Cabral pened this prtin f the meeting. 8. Upper Petaluma River Fld Cntrl Prject A. Overview and Review f Prject/Scping Study Kent Gylfe intrduced himself as Snma Cunty Water Agency s prject manager fr the Scping Study being cnducted fr the Upper Petaluma River Fld Cntrl Prject. This is the third utreach meeting fr the Study and Mr. Gylfe prvided a brief review f the past meetings nting that the prject s success in mving frward hinges n develping partnerships and supprt fr the prject. He views the meeting as an pprtunity t share infrmatin develped t date abut the Prject and receive cmments and feedback n the Prject. Mr. Gylfe made sme additinal pints including: The first wrkshp held n April 28, 2011, fcused n establishing prject bjectives. A bus tur was cnducted by the Water Agency n Octber 1, 2011 t visit several multi benefit fld related facilities within the Laguna Mark West Watershed t help familiarize stakehlders with prject cncepts. The secnd wrkshp held n Octber 5, 2011 highlighted prject cncepts. A larger utreach and ntificatin effrt including mailers t all prperty addresses that were within ptential prject areas was cmpleted fr this meeting based n feedback in April. December 8, 2011 Page 1 f 27

2 The purpse f this third wrkshp is t briefly review the cncepts highlighted in the secnd wrkshp as well as describe and discuss the screening and priritizatin prcess cnducted fr the Study. The Prject area (Zne 2A) has a histrical flding prblem which the Water Agency and City are wrking t address. There are several areas f severe urban and residential flding as well as rural areas. Additinally, recent drughts, regulatry requirements, and a reliability study have shwn vulnerability in the water supply reliability. The Water Agency Bard adpted a Water Supply Strategies Actin Plan which identified jint fld cntrl and water supply prjects as pprtunities t address bth flding and water supply reliability. With that cntext, the Agency is addressing three watersheds within Snma Cunty with similar studies. All f the watersheds have the same cre bjectives and nearly identical supprting bjectives. It is nt the expectatin f this prject t eliminate all flding in Petaluma, but the intent is t implement a prject that can prvide significant fld reductin with a cst/benefit rati that is apprpriate. The prject t be implemented will als ideally attract external funds. A prject culd be a cmbinatin f fld cntrl cncepts and culd be implemented in phases. The Scping Study is the first step in a multi step prcess. Future phases will include mdeling and determining hw much fld prtectin culd be prvided. The Scping Study s intent is t narrw the range f alternatives studied fr feasibility and t establish a radmap fr prject delivery. Summary f Draft Prject Cncepts frm Octber Meeting Randy Raines, with RMC Water and Envirnment, intrduced psters that had been prepared fr the Octber wrkshp and described the Frequently Asked Questins handut that had been prepared in respnse t cmments and questins received after the April 28 and Octber 5, 2011 wrkshps. Tw new memranda are available fr review and describe the cncepts as well as the screening and priritizatin prcess and results. The memranda can be fund nline. Mr. Raines then cntinued the presentatin by summarizing the eleven cncepts that had been identified fr the Prject and described in the Octber meeting. Q: Where is habitat restratin included? A: Mr. Raines nted that it is included as a supprting bjective fr the Prject. The slides discussed are fcused n the cncepts that include varying degrees f habitat restratin. B. Presentatin f Screening and Priritizatin f Prject Cncepts Mr. Raines re intrduced the screening and priritizatin prcesses. The screening prcess was described in the Octber meeting and eliminates cncepts that d nt achieve the Key Prject Purpse, namely t prvide bth fld hazard reductin and grundwater recharge. Of the eleven cncepts, the eliminated cncepts were Levee/Fldwall, Bridge Imprvement and Debris Remval, and Direct Recharge. Raines emphasized that these are nt pr cncepts, but that they d nt fit this particular Prject. The Water Agency r City may pursue these prject cncepts thrugh ther avenues. Mr. Raines described the priritizatin prcess that was applied t the remaining eight cncepts. One aspect f the priritizatin prcess is ranking bjectives. The bjectives were ranked by the public in the Octber meeting using the Objectives Priritizatin Wrksheet. Mr. December 8, 2011 Page 2 f 27

3 Raines estimated that apprximately 30 surveys were cmpleted (pst meeting nte crrectin 28 surveys were cmpleted by stakehlders). The results f the public input were that fld hazard reductin was weighted slightly higher than grundwater recharge, and f the supprting bjectives weighting was fairly evenly distributed, with system sustainability and agricultural land ranked slightly higher than ther supprting bjectives. The secnd step f the priritizatin was t evaluate hw well each cncept satisfied the established prject bjectives. Scre between 0 3 were given t each cncept and crrespnding bjective. A tl called Criterin Decisin Plus was used t cmbine the bjective ranking and cncept evaluatin t develp a cncept pririty list. The baseline priritizatin results shwed that fur cncepts better fit the bjectives f the prject. These included 1) Fldplain Mdificatin, 2) Off stream Detentin Strage, 3) Channel Mdificatin, and 4) Bypass Channel. Sensitivity analysis supprted this baseline priritizatin. Other factrs such as cst and implementatin feasibility were cnsidered as well when develping the three tiers and special enhancement categries f cncepts. C. Discussin f Screening and Priritizatin Prcess and Recmmendatins At this pint in the presentatin, several questins were asked abut the priritizatin prcess and are captured belw: The fllwing are general questins and cmments ffered by attendees: Q: Why des a difference f 0.05 in the priritizatin mdel mean that ne cncept is better than anther? A: Any cncept is nt necessarily better r wrse than anther. The scres at this pint are based n limited infrmatin that bradly defines the cncepts. We are attempting t identify cncepts that will wrk, prvide multiple benefits, and attract external funding. The higher scres are an indicatin that a cncept has a better chance f ding these things. Q: Aren t LID and Plicy Review and Develpment gd ideas? A: Yes, they are gd ideas which is why they have been included in the enhancement categry. Q: Des LID help with majr fld reductin? A: LID prjects are nt typically cnsidered effective fld cntrl prjects during a 100 year event. They are mre effective at smaller events, when the grund isn t saturated. Grund saturatin causes additinal runff. LID des prvide benefits during smaller fld events as well as ther types f benefits, such as water quality benefits, and culd be implemented parallel t the cncepts mre suited fr large fld events. Q: Benefit t cst rati shuld be examined and cnsidered. Many f the lwer ranked cncepts are relatively cheap t implement. A: Nted. Benefit t cst ratis will be develped in the Feasibility Study phase. Q: The relative scres fr the managed fldplain, LID and Plicy Review shuld be elevated. These are the lw cst items and shuld be cnsidered in the mix f prjects. December 8, 2011 Page 3 f 27

4 A: These cncepts are cnsidered enhancement cncepts and shuld be lked at fr implementatin in parallel with ne r mre tiered cncepts. Q: What is the difference between the fldplain mdificatin and managed fldplain cncepts? A: The difference between Managed Fldplain and Fldplain Mdificatin was described. Cncept 1 (Managed Fldplain) was described as maintaining existing fldplain (cntinue allwing the area t fld). This cncept has been applied t an agricultural area near the Pajar River that ccasinally flds. The agricultural land has been designated as preserved fldplain area, allwing the current land uses t cntinue but limiting land use changes that culd cause additinal dwnstream flding. Cncept 4 (Fldplain Mdificatin) was described using the example f the Denman Prject this is an area where terracing was cmpleted t increase strage vlume. Q: In stream detentin basins shuld nt be thrwn ut because they can be cheaper than ffstream detentin strage since there is n cnveyance cst. They shuld be lked at fr the extreme upstream areas where the impact is small and they prvide eclgical benefits. A: In stream detentin basins are in a lwer tier f implementatin cnsideratin because permitting is difficult and they have a high mitigatin and maintenance cst. They culd be cnsidered fr upstream areas if applicable. Q: Will the entire list f cncepts be evaluated in the Envirnmental Impact Reprt? A: N, after the feasibility study, the prject cncept(s) that is/are selected as feasible fr implementatin will be described in detail and evaluated in the EIR. Q: The 1% strm results in a flw f 9,000 cubic feet per secnd at the utlet mall. It is critical t maintain the fld strage capacity at Denman and upstream f the Army Crps weir t allw the dwnstream Petaluma prject t cntinue t maintain its level f prtectin. A: Agreed. It will be imprtant t evaluate cncepts adequately t make sure that n increased flw dwnstream results frm implementatin f a prject. Q: Wuld a reductin in flws allw additinal Petaluma develpment? A: The ptential fr future develpment has nt been a factr in this evaluatin. Q: Regarding LID in rural areas can mre mney be diverted t the Resurce Cnservatin District fr managing the rural fldplain thrugh permaculture? This idea culd be used t reduce the scale f reductin needed frm engineered prjects. A: Cmment nted. Mr. Raines described the three tiers f recmmended priritizatin and reiterated that enhancement cncepts such as Managed Fldplains, LID and Plicy Review and Develpment culd be cnsidered fr implementatin in parallel with higher tiered cncepts. David Keller mentined that a parcel specific mapping tl was utilized successfully in King Cunty, Washingtn and Arcata. Mr. Gylfe nted that Petaluma s XP SWMM mdel will be the mdeling tl used fr the Feasibility Study. D. Next Steps December 8, 2011 Page 4 f 27

5 Mr. Raines nted that this was the last public meeting planned fr the Scping Study prtin f the prject, and the next steps wuld be t develp an implementatin plan and prceed with the Feasibility Study fr the area. Mr. Raines prvided sme details regarding elements f the Feasibility Study which include identifying alternative lcatins, hydraulic mdeling, field testing, benefit and cst analysis, and alternatives definitin and selectin. Raines asked that any additinal public cmment (beynd the 3 minute public cmment perid fllwing the presentatin) be frwarded t his address rraines@rmcwater.cm r by mail t Ann DuBay with the Water Agency by December 16, Cntact infrmatin is at the end f the presentatin and in ntificatin s that have been distributed. Questins and cmments regarding next steps are shwn belw: Q: Will there be drawings/maps where fldplain management is taking place and where mdificatin takes place? A: Yes these are part f the Feasibility Study Q: Terracing in Industrial Avenue area is prly designed. The back side des nt drain and material must be remved frm the fldplain. A: Cmment nted. Q: Are materials being develped fr funding? A: Yes, external funding will be pursued fr implementatin f this Prject. Q: There are things that individual prperty wners can d t help supprt the gals f the Prject. Cmplementary prjects shuld be the fcus f the Prject but all f the ideas and cncepts are interrelated. Will climate change impacts be incrprated int the prject design? A: The pint n interrelated cncepts is well taken. It is anticipated that climate change will be cnsidered as part f the Feasibility Study. It will be imprtant t review the assumptins that have been made in the mdels. Q: An integrated apprach is critical. A: Agreed. Q: A key recmmendatin f the Crps analysis in 1969 was that develpment stay ut f the fldplain and this was ignred by the City and Cunty. This apprach is entirely based n mdifying the watershed system. The example f Tulsa where the City remved develpment frm the fldplain was described alng with a ntatin abut the Gallway Reprt fr Mississippi in 1995/96. The Prject shuld lk at what can be remved frm the fldplain and where develpment shuld be prevented. A: (Raines) The managed fldplain cncept wuld prevent future develpment. Remval f structures has nt been cnsidered as part f the Scping Study. Preservatin f pen space will be evaluated. A: (Cabral) Reductin f the tax base shuld nt be cnsidered. A: (David Rabbitt) There will be anther fld. Prjects like this are abut risk assessment and management. Q: Terracing is expensive and permitting is an issue A: Cmment nted. December 8, 2011 Page 5 f 27

6 Q: The pprtunity t prvide written cmments is appreciated. Will this prject be develped int actins that prperty wners shuld take similar t Slw It, Spread It, Sink It? A: The intent is t develp the prject t a level where utside funding fr implementatin can be applied fr. Q: The three enhancement cncepts shuld be the primary cncepts mving frward. A: These cncepts culd be pursued in a parallel track. Q: City and Cunty land use plicies shuld be reviewed in the Feasibility Study. A: Cmment nted. 9. Public Cmment Mr. Cabral facilitated the public cmment perid. Cmmenters were give 3 minutes t prvide cmments. The fllwing are cmments received frm meeting attendees and cmmittee representatives: Jhn Cheney Cheney stated that he felt that the Crps Payran fld prject shuld be finished befre this ne starts. He questined what effect this Prject wuld have n the Crps prject. He nted that he saw vegetatin remval in Willw Brk alng Redwd Blvd, but that the plants were put there as part f mitigatin fr the Payran prject. David Keller Keller intrduced himself as a representative f the Petaluma River Cuncil, and nted he was nt n the stakehlder list fr the April meeting. JT Wick Keller nted that the Crps calculatins fr the dwntwn Petaluma Fld Prject are cntingent n maintaining the fld capacity upstream. Effects f this Prject need t be turned int impacts t the Crps prject. If there are changes t strage r flws it will cause deteriratin f the Crps prject. The Crps prject used the 1987 General Plan fr develpment cnditins, nt the current plan. These assumptins shuld be reviewed. Wick nted that the Friends f the Petaluma River, a grup f 2,000 stakehlders was nt ntified f the meetings. Wick als nted that he wants t see the ecsystem prjects evaluated in the Feasibility Study. [Cmmittee Member Cmments] Jhn Fitzgerald Ted Cabral The Zne 2A Cmmittee and the Water Agency have n cntrl ver the Crps prject. Cmmunity has spken ludly abut the enhancement cncepts, and this will be taken up at the next Zne 2A Cmmittee meeting. December 8, 2011 Page 6 f 27

7 Cabral reminded the rm that the Zne Cmmittee was made up f vlunteers and that a plite atmsphere shuld be maintained. The Water Agency has been wrking hard and dealing with many issues, sme f which have just recently cme t the awareness f the Cmmittee. Maintenance wrk is planned t duble this cming year ver previus years. Ned Orrett Rural land wners have a valid cncern abut being shuldered with the respnsibility fr prject implementatin. This factr will be cnsidered mving frward. This Prject will nt eliminate the risk f flding but wrking tgether it can make a difference. Orrett stated that he enjyed the quality f the spirit f the grup tnight and feels cnfident that a creative slutin will be identified. December 8, 2011 Page 7 f 27

8 Attachment A: Meeting Agenda December 8, 2011 Page 8 f 27

9 Attachment B: Presentatin Slides December 8, 2011 Page 9 f 27

10 December 8, 2011 Page 10 f 27

11 December 8, 2011 Page 11 f 27

12 December 8, 2011 Page 12 f 27

13 December 8, 2011 Page 13 f 27

14 December 8, 2011 Page 14 f 27

15 December 8, 2011 Page 15 f 27

16 December 8, 2011 Page 16 f 27

17 December 8, 2011 Page 17 f 27

18 December 8, 2011 Page 18 f 27

19 December 8, 2011 Page 19 f 27

20 December 8, 2011 Page 20 f 27

21 December 8, 2011 Page 21 f 27

22 December 8, 2011 Page 22 f 27

23 December 8, 2011 Page 23 f 27

24 December 8, 2011 Page 24 f 27

25 December 8, 2011 Page 25 f 27

26 December 8, 2011 Page 26 f 27

27 Attachment C: Meeting Attendees Meeting attendees included: Richard Tavernetti Rich Tavernetti Richard Brders Tit Sasaki Christ Albertsn Marcus Trtta Unknwn Jasn Sweeney Mike Ortn Michael Bwers Henry Hansel Jhn Cheney J T Wick Betty Dale Vaughn Kelp Luisa Cravitt Brad Bensn Tm Hammnd Wayne Leach Susan Kirks Bb Krieger Eugene Camzzi Bill Krtum Bb Martin Chris Ward Grant Davis David Keller Jenny Sterling Chris Cheek Mark Fergusn Bill Bennett Jhn King Christy Kennedy Randy Raines Tim Harrisn It appeared that nt all attendees signed in when they arrived at the meeting. December 8, 2011 Page 27 f 27